The drone debate

Charles Krauthammer’s piece (“In defense of drones,” Opinion, Feb. 16) was an excellent article, as far as it went, and I mean that sincerely. He avoided the cheap shots and partisan spin the undercuts the credibility of much commentary.

However, he avoided the most difficult question, which is the legality of carrying out drone strikes in other countries. Surely the U.S. would not allow Mexico to send drones to strike narco-terrorists in the U.S. We’d call that illegal and a violation of our sovereignty.

Does our “right” to strike in Pakistan or Yemen rest solely on those countries inability to prevent it? Does Mexico have the right to strike in the U.S. if they decide our efforts against narco-terrorists are not “good enough”?

I support the drone strike program, but I’d suggest Krauthammer was ducking the most important issue here for lack of a strong argument. Failing to acknowledge this issue is less than fully honest. – Michael Snare, Scripps Ranch

What Dave Patterson (Letters, Feb. 19, about U.S. policy using drones in warfare) fails to acknowledge is the fact that an American citizen who elects to join our enemy, who has attacked us repeatedly over the past 30 years, is not a criminal. He (or she) is an enemy warrior. In war, you shoot the enemy. – Charles Farrell, Pacific Beach

As an Army veteran, I certainly agree with the “peace” aims of letter writer Dave Patterson (Feb. 19). However, his constitutional analysis is incorrect.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution exempts our government from providing due process by the military during war or “times of danger.” There is no “due process” protection for U.S. citizens who have taken up arms against us, nor does the Constitution provide any special privilege to those living in U.S. territory. Remember the wholesale suspension of constitutional rights by Abraham Lincoln within the U.S. during time of war, and he is often hailed as our greatest president.

The fact that the Constitution provides no such limitations means it is ever so important who we elect to that office. – Larry Stirling, Mission Hills

I simply don’t understand all the left-wing ACLU-influenced brouhaha.

American drones, over foreign soil, fighting al-Qaeda terrorists, targeting and killing Saudis, Iranians or Syrians is OK, but when the terrorist, on foreign soil, happens to be a turncoat traitor U.S. citizen, this individual has a right to “due process” from us? Seriously? Drones should be able to kill any terrorist whether French, Russian, Swedish, Somali or, yes, American.

I believe that traitor Americans, who leave America and plot against us from foreign soil, are fair game for drones or CIA black ops or whatever means are necessary to eliminate them. To me they are merely al-Qaeda terrorists. They ceased being U.S. citizens Americans when started pledging allegiance to al-Qaeda on foreign soil. I can’t tell you how much it personally pains me to compliment President Obama on anything, but I have to do it on this matter. – Jerry Hermes, San Carlos